Why does the earth rotate?

[dad]

People usually present all their opinions as fact, and some feel that "Majority Rule" is more "factual" than others.
Other than sinners, logically, who would ever say something they didn't believe?

With claims of science, belief is not supposed to be involved.

 

[Kylie]

It is not my point of view but God's. I merely echo it. Since science cannot prove that either the past was not different or that it was the same state....they lose in all ways.

Correction - it is not God's point of view, but just what you have been told his point of view is. Since God has not appeared to you to explain it first hand, all you can do is hope that the messenger has delivered an accurate message.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correction - it is not God's point of view, but just what you have been told his point of view is.

Why don't you tell us His point of view then?

 

[dad]

Correction - it is not God's point of view, but just what you have been told his point of view is. Since God has not appeared to you to explain it first hand, all you can do is hope that the messenger has delivered an accurate message.

Correction, Jesus is God and He made it crystal clear His words and Scripture were absolutely true to the nth degree.

 

[The Barbarian]

With claims of science, belief is not supposed to be involved.

Why do creationist always want to equivocate on the meanings of "belief?"

"I believe in God."

"Scientists believe the data show that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."

These, they would have us um, believe, all mean the same thing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Rather than deny plasma exists, I think what I was asking you is how you know it does all that you claim, and how science thinks it is something else?

I only claim what the plasma physicists claim. It is the cosmologists that make the claims not backed by laboratory experiments - that in fact treat plasma exactly the opposite of your next statement.

As for plasma in deep space I see this

"An astrophysical plasma is a plasma (an ionized gas) the physical properties of which are studied as part of astrophysics. Much of the baryonic matter of the universe is thought to consist of plasma, a state of matter in which atoms and molecules are so hot, that they have ionized by breaking up into their constituent parts, negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

So then ask them why they are treating plasma at 2 million K like a neutral gas - refusing to accept what that says and postulating Fairie Dust dark matter instead?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/15/full/
http://www.livescience.com/23503-milky-way-galaxy-giant-gas-halo.html

On earth, yes we do know that time and space and physics exist. However, have you any proof that the magnetic, electrical, and other forces exist there and affect plasma as you claim?? Let's see what you got.

I got all of science - what do you think they detect out there?

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields

Yet they still attempt to treat that plasma like neutral gasses - ignoring those magnetic fields and using gravitational theory only.

As for your link supposedly showing how plasma is the same in deep space I see you spammed a Russian video of some cosmonauts in space over earth. Very funny.

Those Russians are the only ones ever to do an experiment in actual space with plasma - and lo and behold - it behaved differently than any of the experts thought it would. American or otherwise. Yet they refuse to change their views about plasma - just like you - imagine that.

 

[dad]

Why do creationist always want to equivocate on the meanings of "belief?"

"I believe in God."

"Scientists believe the data show that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."

These, they would have us um, believe, all mean the same thing.

You believe that physics as we know it will exist billions of years from now and that the universe will go dark. Basically it doesn't matter what scientists believe. Knowledge matters.

 

[dad]

I only claim what the plasma physicists claim. It is the cosmologists that make the claims not backed by laboratory experiments - that in fact treat plasma exactly the opposite of your next statement.

Your retreat to 'laboratory experiments' shows you believe that the whole universe is as here.

So then ask them why they are treating plasma at 2 million K like a neutral gas - refusing to accept what that says and postulating Fairie Dust dark matter instead?

They do what you do...assume that the far universe is the same as here. They apparently interpret the data to mean something other than what you do.

The issue that matters is whether the far universe actually is like here. If it is, well, you have a fighting chance of having your opinion win over theirs. However it is a bit like a squirrel in a lion pit...the probable winner is the bigger, better equipped party.

I got all of science - what do you think they detect out there?

Your article talked about gravity and magnetism in distant galaxies. One has to know the size and distance to the galaxy to be able to read what is happening there. You don't. You can't. The ways cosmology determines distance and size have been shown to have a fatal error. Unless time exists in the far universe no sizes or distances can be known. All the methods to determine distance involve time existing there as here.

Those Russians are the only ones ever to do an experiment in actual space with plasma - and lo and behold - it behaved differently than any of the experts thought it would. American or otherwise. Yet they refuse to change their views about plasma - just like you - imagine that.

That doesn't matter much. Minute differences of how things react or behave in fishbowl earth area are about as significant as dust on an old fashioned scale.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Why do creationist always want to equivocate on the meanings of "belief?"

"I believe in God."

"Scientists believe the data show that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."

These, they would have us um, believe, all mean the same thing.

You believe that physics as we know it will exist billions of years from now

I do? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Your imagination working overtime, again. But since you're here, perhaps you can explain why creationist like to equivocate "believe." Why do you guys do that?

And on the 'universe going dark' stuff, it might be useful for you to learn a little math and physics, and then come back and tell us about it when you have the means to understand what it's about.

If I've misjudged you, kindly show us the math on expansion, so we can see that you actually know something about it.

 

[dad]

I do? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Your imagination working overtime, again.

So you do not believe science now?? Where do you stand??

Claims like this abound from scientists

"In tens of billions of years - a relatively short time in cosmological terms - physicists claim the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/566151/Collapse-universe-imminent-scientists-dark-energy

You do realize that physics is involved?

And on the 'universe going dark' stuff, it might be useful for you to learn a little math and physics, and then come back and tell us about it when you have the means to understand what it's about.

It is about false prophests and false prophesy. 100%

If I've misjudged you, kindly show us the math on expansion, so we can see that you actually know something about it.

You can't do math on the unknown.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
I do? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Your imagination working overtime, again.

So you do not believe science now??

Perhaps you don't know what "science" means.

"In tens of billions of years - a relatively short time in cosmological terms - physicists claim the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it."

I know physicists who don't think so. In fact, most of them seem to not think so.

You do realize that physics is involved?

It seems to be a mystery for you.

Barbarian suggests:
And on the 'universe going dark' stuff, it might be useful for you to learn a little math and physics, and then come back and tell us about it when you have the means to understand what it's about.

Barbarian suggests:
If I've misjudged you, kindly show us the math on expansion, so we can see that you actually know something about it.

You can't do math on the unknown.

No other creationist I know about can do it, either. Just checking.

 

[dad]

Perhaps you don't know what "science" means.

"In tens of billions of years - a relatively short time in cosmological terms - physicists claim the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it."

I know physicists who don't think so. In fact, most of them seem to not think so.

Doesn't matter. Name what they think? You think they do not also assume physics will hold in the future? Guess the root in the word 'physicist'?!

Barbarian suggests:
And on the 'universe going dark' stuff, it might be useful for you to learn a little math and physics, and then come back and tell us about it when you have the means to understand what it's about.

Dark stuff is invented baloney.

Barbarian suggests:
If I've misjudged you, kindly show us the math on expansion, so we can see that you actually know something about it.

Expansion is based on beliefs about the unknown. The number you need for that is 0.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you don't know the arguments for, or even against, cosmology, what makes you think you can comment rationally about it?

 

[dad]

If you don't know the arguments for, or even against, cosmology, what makes you think you can comment rationally about it?

I do.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see your assertion, but your failure to show us any of the math involved, speaks much more eloquently.

 

[ecco]

... the universe rotates around the earth.

Thus we have a geocentric earth that looks heliocentric.

Please provide the evidence you have to support this assertion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please provide the evidence you have to support this assertion.

Don't got none.

 

[ananda]

Because I'm not afraid to do that.

I'll even ask an atheist a theist question.

And better yet, I'm not afraid to ask a scientist a question about Genesis 1.

In fact, I have a whole slew of challenge threads for the educated elite that is worth reading, just to show how elusive some can get.I understand

I don't care to share my personal information either.

I appreciate your honesty.

And for the record, I call those who use the scientific method to avoid answering my simple questions: "scientific methodists."

And for those who do answer them -- if ever -- I consider them "scientific methodists" as well.

What would you do if you met Jesus on the road?

 

[ananda]

 

[ecco]

But theuniverse rotates around the earth.
Thus we have a geocentric earth that looks heliocentric.

Please provide the evidence you have to support this assertion.

Don't got none.

Why would you believe something for which you have no evidence?

Can you explain why you believe we have a geocentric earth?